The Joint Committee set out that point very clearly in its report, and we have heard it, but we believe that a distinction can be drawn between the principle of extending 14 days to 28 days and the consideration of an individual case—and that it is entirely possible and practical for the House to do so.
I appreciate that in considering a detention of terrorism suspects (temporary extensions) Bill, Parliament would not be able to discuss matters relating to particular individuals or anything that might compromise an investigation or a future prosecution, but it is important to recognise the clear difference between Parliament's considering whether 28-day detention should be available in principle and the judiciary's role in determining whether in an individual case to extend a detention warrant under schedule 8 to the 2000 Act. Parliament would not take a decision about an individual suspect or suspects; that would be a decision for the proper judicial process.
Parliament would take a decision about the principle of 28 days in a given set of circumstances, which would be explained in as much detail as possible. Parliament would also be able to discuss in general the issues of the threat and the reasons why an increased threat might require a longer maximum detention period.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Brokenshire
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c264 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:24:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771668
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771668
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771668